Jump to content


Wide-open discussion of the loss of Low Speed Chase


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
1348 replies to this topic

#1301 gregj1

gregj1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 352 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 12:24 AM

I truly appreciate the tone of this discussion.

BobJ, doggone, hawaifins
Having non-sailors look at it is I think, exactly what is called for. Sailors will always be biased toward 'the way we do it', "everybody does it that way", "it's always been done that way" - Case in point, which also addresses another issue many people talked about, 'using an island as a turning mark.' Yes, Asymptote, any island. It just isn't necessary any more. Hfins makes the point that you can navigate with a smart phone these days so why have a physical mark? Use virtual marks like the Vendee Globe. That you sailed the proper course is easy to verify. Off road racers have done this for years. It's easy to take shortcuts in the Baja 1000 so. you have to prove you drove the course after you finish.

Asymptote, Ship o' Fools

For the lawyers and insurance people, yes, it is only about the money. That is the only dog they have in the fight. For the grieving father, I just can't accept that. What if the guy promised to give whatever money he got to US Sailing to be used for safety education programs? Would he still be a miscreant? I, sadly, must admit my motivation would be vengeance. I'm not better than that. But, it would also be about retribution and punishment.

solo

The captain is the responsible party and I don't know wether that was the owner or the hired skipper. I agree that people are responsible for their own actions (not clipping in) but, it is just as clear that it wasn't a requirement of the captain.

The thing that is clear is that no one can win now. Everyone involved has already lost.

#1302 solosailor

solosailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,884 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 12:48 AM

Case in point, which also addresses another issue many people talked about, 'using an island as a turning mark.' Yes, Asymptote, any island. It just isn't necessary any more.

Not necessary anymore.....?!? That statement makes my head steam and it's at best a knee-jerk reaction. Without calling names...... it shows a severe lack of understandings of the dangers of sailing and what proper seamanship is. What if your little gps gizmo stops working or runs out of batteries? Seamanship involves a lot more than pushing buttons with waypoints you set on a comfy couch shoreside. You should be able to navigate without them and reliance on them is a huge problem in itself. Yes, the island can be cut to close, but that is only a tiny bit of the course with a lee shore and hazardous conditions. More than several lives have been lost on the shoals/bars/main shipping channel in the Gulf of the Farallones; no where near shore..... not to mention the huge lee shore the whole coast provides on the way back, Mile Rock, Seal Rocks, Pt. Bonita, the bridge abutments and the list goes on. Yeah, let's stop going around islands indeeeeed.

#1303 Ship o' Fools

Ship o' Fools

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 562 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 01:07 AM

I truly appreciate the tone of this discussion.


Asymptote, Ship o' Fools

For the lawyers and insurance people, yes, it is only about the money. That is the only dog they have in the fight. For the grieving father, I just can't accept that. What if the guy promised to give whatever money he got to US Sailing to be used for safety education programs? Would he still be a miscreant? I, sadly, must admit my motivation would be vengeance. I'm not better than that. But, it would also be about retribution and punishment.



Civil Court is not set up to be a fact finding tribunal and, generally, can only award money to compensate for a loss.

If your motivation is vengeance, then the case needs to be in Family Court.

#1304 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,553 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 02:30 AM

The Panel, through its egregious actions, has invited more lawsuits in the future


you should sue US Sailing

#1305 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,553 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 02:41 AM

If your motivation is vengeance, then the case needs to be in Family Court.


i hope you intended that to be as funny as it was.

for the rest of you, if it wasn't for insurance company tactics, these kinds of lawsuits would be exceedingly rare - like they were before insurance companies became what they are.

#1306 gregj1

gregj1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 352 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 02:59 AM

Case in point, which also addresses another issue many people talked about, 'using an island as a turning mark.' Yes, Asymptote, any island. It just isn't necessary any more.

Not necessary anymore.....?!? That statement makes my head steam and it's at best a knee-jerk reaction. Without calling names...... it shows a severe lack of understandings of the dangers of sailing and what proper seamanship is. What if your little gps gizmo stops working or runs out of batteries? Seamanship involves a lot more than pushing buttons with waypoints you set on a comfy couch shoreside. You should be able to navigate without them and reliance on them is a huge problem in itself. Yes, the island can be cut to close, but that is only a tiny bit of the course with a lee shore and hazardous conditions. More than several lives have been lost on the shoals/bars/main shipping channel in the Gulf of the Farallones; no where near shore..... not to mention the huge lee shore the whole coast provides on the way back, Mile Rock, Seal Rocks, Pt. Bonita, the bridge abutments and the list goes on. Yeah, let's stop going around islands indeeeeed.


I'm not sure you understand what I mean. It would have no impact on most of what you said here. What I'm saying is instead of the sailing instructions being to round Farallon Islands, they would say you have to go north of 37.73,-123.04 and south of 37.68,-123.03. You take cutting close to the islands out of the picture. I'm not trying to be a poser here. I have NO offshore racing experience. My racing has been mostly been on inland lakes with a collection of 4KSB's. I just don't get adding danger by rewarding risk taking. Again, look at the Vendee Globe. There is a big reward for going far south but great danger so the RC took it out of the picture. It's still dangerous, just less so.

#1307 gregj1

gregj1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 352 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 03:02 AM


I truly appreciate the tone of this discussion.


Asymptote, Ship o' Fools

For the lawyers and insurance people, yes, it is only about the money. That is the only dog they have in the fight. For the grieving father, I just can't accept that. What if the guy promised to give whatever money he got to US Sailing to be used for safety education programs? Would he still be a miscreant? I, sadly, must admit my motivation would be vengeance. I'm not better than that. But, it would also be about retribution and punishment.



Civil Court is not set up to be a fact finding tribunal and, generally, can only award money to compensate for a loss.


That just isn't so.

http://litigation.fi...civil-case.html

#1308 PATSYQPATSY

PATSYQPATSY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 563 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 03:08 AM

Despite debate over issues brought out by the panel, the key is bringing these out for discussion. This has fairly happened and made many think a bit more, if only a bit, about safety on the water. This has some amount of value for each of us.

The cornerstone of discovery for mishap events is eyewitness accounts. One speculates on the mishap without survivor input. With survivor input, of a candid nature, one can form the picture with clarity that will bring valid points of learning to those who can benefit from them.

The second order effect of this lawsuit may be a distinct lack of cooperation from future surviving members of mishaps. The skipper and crew would think twice before delivering open statements to a panel interested in the safety of its constituency, if these statements and the collective judgement were to be the basis of a legal threat. The issues surrounding the mishap would, at best, be speculation and most would dismiss them for lack of validity. The lessons that would otherwise benefit others would be lost or diluted.

#1309 One eye Jack

One eye Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,195 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 03:16 AM

Case in point, which also addresses another issue many people talked about, 'using an island as a turning mark.' Yes, Asymptote, any island. It just isn't necessary any more.

Not necessary anymore.....?!? That statement makes my head steam and it's at best a knee-jerk reaction. Without calling names...... it shows a severe lack of understandings of the dangers of sailing and what proper seamanship is. What if your little gps gizmo stops working or runs out of batteries? Seamanship involves a lot more than pushing buttons with waypoints you set on a comfy couch shoreside. You should be able to navigate without them and reliance on them is a huge problem in itself. Yes, the island can be cut to close, but that is only a tiny bit of the course with a lee shore and hazardous conditions. More than several lives have been lost on the shoals/bars/main shipping channel in the Gulf of the Farallones; no where near shore..... not to mention the huge lee shore the whole coast provides on the way back, Mile Rock, Seal Rocks, Pt. Bonita, the bridge abutments and the list goes on. Yeah, let's stop going around islands indeeeeed.

it is very apparent that there are sailors that sail only with gizmos, instruments, GPS, and what ever is the new thing being sold. And they are so involved with these that hey don't look around and smell the coffee. They need to sail the boat , not have the instruments sail the boat. Sir you are right. More people have gotten into trouble out in the open ship channel than around the Farallons. Like in the double handed race in 1982 . Where a southerly came in. They lost 4-5 boats. Like most southerlies it was Nasty . Some tried to get home and didn't make it, went up on the beach, or road it out staying off shore. Or starting a race with an ebb and having a good westerly, blowing in the channel ,forming good size waves with no back sides to them. As your from the bay, you know. Or sailing in the fog ,dodging ships. All in a days race west of the golden gate.

#1310 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,553 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 03:53 AM

The second order effect of this lawsuit may be a distinct lack of cooperation from future surviving members of mishaps. The skipper and crew would think twice before delivering open statements to a panel interested in the safety of its constituency, if these statements and the collective judgement were to be the basis of a legal threat. The issues surrounding the mishap would, at best, be speculation and most would dismiss them for lack of validity. The lessons that would otherwise benefit others would be lost or diluted.


this is an important point, and the reason why the NTSB has their legal team review all accident investigation reports.

still, i'll lay some money on the prediction that this case will never see a trial, and the rest will be a non-issue.

#1311 K38BOB

K38BOB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,596 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 06:03 AM


Case in point, which also addresses another issue many people talked about, 'using an island as a turning mark.' Yes, Asymptote, any island. It just isn't necessary any more.

Not necessary anymore.....?!? That statement makes my head steam and it's at best a knee-jerk reaction. Without calling names...... it shows a severe lack of understandings of the dangers of sailing and what proper seamanship is. What if your little gps gizmo stops working or runs out of batteries? Seamanship involves a lot more than pushing buttons with waypoints you set on a comfy couch shoreside. You should be able to navigate without them and reliance on them is a huge problem in itself. Yes, the island can be cut to close, but that is only a tiny bit of the course with a lee shore and hazardous conditions. More than several lives have been lost on the shoals/bars/main shipping channel in the Gulf of the Farallones; no where near shore..... not to mention the huge lee shore the whole coast provides on the way back, Mile Rock, Seal Rocks, Pt. Bonita, the bridge abutments and the list goes on. Yeah, let's stop going around islands indeeeeed.


I'm not sure you understand what I mean. It would have no impact on most of what you said here. What I'm saying is instead of the sailing instructions being to round Farallon Islands, they would say you have to go north of 37.73,-123.04 and south of 37.68,-123.03. You take cutting close to the islands out of the picture. I'm not trying to be a poser here. I have NO offshore racing experience. My racing has been mostly been on inland lakes with a collection of 4KSB's. I just don't get adding danger by rewarding risk taking. Again, look at the Vendee Globe. There is a big reward for going far south but great danger so the RC took it out of the picture. It's still dangerous, just less so.


Estimated 7500 successful race roundings of the islands. 1 unsuccessful on the island.
The US Sailing report said lets educate folks on the hazards to improve seamanship

#1312 K38BOB

K38BOB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,596 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 06:06 AM


Case in point, which also addresses another issue many people talked about, 'using an island as a turning mark.' Yes, Asymptote, any island. It just isn't necessary any more.

Not necessary anymore.....?!? That statement makes my head steam and it's at best a knee-jerk reaction. Without calling names...... it shows a severe lack of understandings of the dangers of sailing and what proper seamanship is. What if your little gps gizmo stops working or runs out of batteries? Seamanship involves a lot more than pushing buttons with waypoints you set on a comfy couch shoreside. You should be able to navigate without them and reliance on them is a huge problem in itself. Yes, the island can be cut to close, but that is only a tiny bit of the course with a lee shore and hazardous conditions. More than several lives have been lost on the shoals/bars/main shipping channel in the Gulf of the Farallones; no where near shore..... not to mention the huge lee shore the whole coast provides on the way back, Mile Rock, Seal Rocks, Pt. Bonita, the bridge abutments and the list goes on. Yeah, let's stop going around islands indeeeeed.

it is very apparent that there are sailors that sail only with gizmos, instruments, GPS, and what ever is the new thing being sold. And they are so involved with these that hey don't look around and smell the coffee. They need to sail the boat , not have the instruments sail the boat. Sir you are right. More people have gotten into trouble out in the open ship channel than around the Farallons. Like in the double handed race in 1982 . Where a southerly came in. They lost 4-5 boats. Like most southerlies it was Nasty . Some tried to get home and didn't make it, went up on the beach, or road it out staying off shore. Or starting a race with an ebb and having a good westerly, blowing in the channel ,forming good size waves with no back sides to them. As your from the bay, you know. Or sailing in the fog ,dodging ships. All in a days race west of the golden gate.


2

#1313 bruno

bruno

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,669 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 02:11 PM

In my limited experience, there only a few places globally today where the native populace actively, empirically learns the wave patterns on a given spot year round. The only way to really gain the judgement of what is possible is to get caught or nearly caught inside, it is a Darwinian process to some extent. Fishermen get some of it, surfers get some of it, sailors, swimmers, paddlers, etc., but really only the relativlely few who combine several activities get to see what a given break does all year long.

Getting picked off occasionally is how one learns, you have to be on the spot to get picked off. It is that simple. Sometimes the consequences are fatal but that risk may not be apparent to the uninitiated. Demanding that only the fully initiated can round a given point will limit the pool greatly. Today inour modern society we like to enjoy a range of activities mankind has never experienced before. E.g., I ski maybe 1x a year now, but I still like having that option though I do not live that life.

So if one races around the Farrallones 2 or 3x a year one may feel experienced in that passage yet not be an expert on that particular break to sufficiently gauge the risk of a Black Swan there. Arguing this stuff in court is not good because stats, testimony, evidence however well intentioned, researched, or srutinized cannot recapture a past moment. They got picked off and paid the price. It may gall the father to see the boat owner alive and well, maybe having a drink and a laugh in the bar, maybe still sailing, and his daughter dead and gone but suing will not make that better nor will it help the rest of us.

#1314 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,016 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 02:12 PM


it is very apparent that there are sailors that sail only with gizmos, instruments, GPS, and what ever is the new thing being sold. And they are so involved with these that hey don't look around and smell the coffee. They need to sail the boat , not have the instruments sail the boat. Sir you are right. More people have gotten into trouble out in the open ship channel than around the Farallons. Like in the double handed race in 1982 . Where a southerly came in. They lost 4-5 boats. Like most southerlies it was Nasty . Some tried to get home and didn't make it, went up on the beach, or road it out staying off shore. Or starting a race with an ebb and having a good westerly, blowing in the channel ,forming good size waves with no back sides to them. As your from the bay, you know. Or sailing in the fog ,dodging ships. All in a days race west of the golden gate.


2


Perhaps, but one thing that was striking for me about the LSC Farallones race was actually how LITTLE people where using their gps and other gizmos. By and large the nav process around the island was 'VFR navigation'. That is they (most of the racers interviewed, not just LSC) rounded the island (mostly) based on visual distance off (the island and the 'surf line'). That is they did in fact have their 'heads out of the boat' and NOT focused on gps waypoints or depth sounder contours.

#1315 K38BOB

K38BOB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,596 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 02:53 PM



it is very apparent that there are sailors that sail only with gizmos, instruments, GPS, and what ever is the new thing being sold. And they are so involved with these that hey don't look around and smell the coffee. They need to sail the boat , not have the instruments sail the boat. Sir you are right. More people have gotten into trouble out in the open ship channel than around the Farallons. Like in the double handed race in 1982 . Where a southerly came in. They lost 4-5 boats. Like most southerlies it was Nasty . Some tried to get home and didn't make it, went up on the beach, or road it out staying off shore. Or starting a race with an ebb and having a good westerly, blowing in the channel ,forming good size waves with no back sides to them. As your from the bay, you know. Or sailing in the fog ,dodging ships. All in a days race west of the golden gate.


2


Perhaps, but one thing that was striking for me about the LSC Farallones race was actually how LITTLE people where using their gps and other gizmos. By and large the nav process around the island was 'VFR navigation'. That is they (most of the racers interviewed, not just LSC) rounded the island (mostly) based on visual distance off (the island and the 'surf line'). That is they did in fact have their 'heads out of the boat' and NOT focused on gps waypoints or depth sounder contours.


No GPS, epirbs in 82.
I'll go back and re-read the interviews. Not everyone who raced was interviewed. Not all who raced do all 3 races around the rocks- in fact I would say very few do 2-3 races. Those who do 2 I believe would be the shorthanded ones both of whom have skippers meetings. The latter point also coming out in the need for education in the US S report. I don't think a skippers meeting is mandatory but education and culture need to be managed somehow and skippers meetings are an important part of that for some races- arguably more important than a SAS with International certification (which is a nice option too)

VFR is important too.


"At the skippers meeting we had consulted with Garry Helms about how (close) to round the island and decided to take it
very wide, particularly since we were quite alone already… What we were not expecting was how close the Middle
Farallones are and that some of the shoals nearby (North) were
also breaking, putting Mavericks to shame… So we carefully
(and nervously) aimed at the middle, set the screecher, jibed and headed back for the Gate. " http://www.sfbama.or...er DHF_2010.pdf


Middle Farallones http://maps.google.c...Island&t=h&z=16 zoom back to see North and South Islands. North and Middle are point for wave fronts to diffract/refract on as they head for SE/Maintop islands. Makes for some interesting wave additions/subtractions. You can actually see multiple wavefronts here http://maps.google.c...Island&t=h&z=15

and nearby Mavericks http://en.wikipedia....icks_(location) with some very large waves

The only totally safe waypoint to round the Farallones is 26 miles away- stay in your slip.

PS- I should probably add that Gary came back on a different boat then he went out in 99
http://www.sfbama.org/fs/index.html

#1316 pogen

pogen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,114 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 05:18 PM

If your motivation is vengeance, then the case needs to be in Family Court.


You can expect to be served shortly by my attorneys as I will be taking action against you to for losses and punitive damages arising from the destruction of a valuable computer keyboard, said keyboard no longer functioning due to coffee soakage.

#1317 Hobie Dog

Hobie Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,408 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 07:54 PM

You are kidding yourself when you think that a lawsuit is a forum for truth finding. The point of a civil lawsuit is to obtain an award of money - a lot of money. Lawyers do not stand before a jury and say "I don't know what happened here but I hope you, the jury, can figure it out for us". No. Lawyers go to court to win. They have a theory of the case. they present facts to support that theory, and attempt to convince the jury that their theory is correct which justifies a big award of money. At the end of the trial, no one is going to be happy and a lot of things will be said at trial by paid experts that the boat owner and skipper were grossly negligent and how the crew was negligent regarding their own safety - all of this in furtherance of asking 12 non-sailors to decide who was wrong and who was at fault.

If someone really wanted to know why their daughter lost her life, they'd hire an independent maritime expert to explain the US Sailing report, explain the issues presented to LSC in rounding the islands and/or conduct their own separate investigation.

As for finding fault and blaming someone so that there is some element of closure - they skipper driving the boat lost his life too. There is nothing you can do to him now.

The lawsuit is about money and is now driven by attorneys and an insurance company. In the end, money will exchange hands and the case will never go to trial.

A couple of other points . . . (1) there is a Jones Act cause of action in the complaint which I understand is like worker's compensation for sailors. There is no requirement to prove negligence or fault of the owner, rather you only have to prove a sailing related injury. If the case was not about money, whey include a Jones Act claim? (2) There are punitive damage allegations in the complaint. Punitive damages are not covered by insurance so the family of the deceased skipper now has - in addition to their personal loss - worry about the Busch family coming after their home and assets. Nothing like going after a grieving widow.

Excellent post!!!

Money will probably exchange hands from the insurance company to the Dad and scumbag lawyers. The Dad, I guess will do something with the money and the lawyers will slither back to their offices buying a new $1000 suit on the way. And guess what, if you race offshore YOU are going to PAY FOR THAT NEW SUIT! There is no free lunch and the insurance companies are not simply going to eat this expense. The loss of the cost of the boat is going to be a fraction of what is probably paid out. And even if nothing is paid out the insurance company still has to pay their lawyers and that expense is passed on to the policy holders.

As you said if the Dad really wants to find out exactly what happened hire somebody to investigate it. I have read the US Sailing report and I thought it is very good in explaining what happened. I certainly learned a lot on significant wave heights, their frequency variations and when they can be expected to break on shore.

Not to get to political but lawsuits like these, “because somebody has to be at fault and must be sued”, is one of the major problems with our health care system in the USA. Malpractice insurance is a HUGE cost of doing business that just gets passed down to the consumers to cover law suits. One of the reasons why taking your dog to the Vet is way cheaper than going to a people Doc.

#1318 Bulbhunter

Bulbhunter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,400 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 08:12 PM

Good reason to join the SSS - something goes bad you won't have relatives of lost crew going after your family who also lost someone in a bad accident such as this one.

This type of lawsuit simply shows that you can't get groups of people together that share the same interests which might have risks without the risk of someone not involved in the activity ie a family member going after your family because you organized the activity or in this case owned the boat. The survivors of this accident haven't sued the owner for damages because they knew the risks in doing the event and made the choice to go. Fair guess this guys daughter would not agree with his actions if she were here to speak for her self.

#1319 Silverbullet

Silverbullet

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,626 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 10:55 PM

Can most of you set aside your own personal agendas and motivations based on how this may possibly affect you, and let the father who lost his daughter deal with it however he wishes to?

#1320 Bulbhunter

Bulbhunter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,400 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 11:05 PM

Can most of you set aside your own personal agendas and motivations based on how this may possibly affect you, and let the father who lost his daughter deal with it however he wishes to?


His method is not dealing with anything other than making a great example of why I have even less interest in crewed racing aboard my boats or future boats.

#1321 corkob

corkob

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 563 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 11:07 PM


Well I don't understand how if the "Captain" (hired pro skipper-for-the-day) is responsible,
how they are suing the owner, who was present, rather than the 'Captains' estate. The 'captain' is dead, the owner survived. Unless as owner you are always the master? Or is it the usually deep pockets, you get to pay 100% even if you
are only 1% responsible, because you are the
one that has money.
I would really like some informed insight on this issue.


Like the vicarious liability cases where driver of a lease car gets in an accident and the injured parties sue the leasing company because they are the owner of the car. This has also happened where driver is backing out of their driveway and hits their kid. Said driver then sues the leasing company for injuries they caused to their kid... As you said, deep pockets!

Is not the vicarious liability in road traffic matters statutory in nature - provided the driver is driving with the consent of the owner the owner is liable for the drivers torts? Even though there is no statutory equivalent for boats, I would expect that an owner even if he is not skippering himself he has an obligation to provide a competent skipper. He has the ultimate control of the boat. If he doesn't Provide a competent skipper he may well be found liable. Might be interesting case however if employed skipper is a professional. Has the owner discharged his obligations in employing a recognized professional?

#1322 Bulbhunter

Bulbhunter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,400 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 11:11 PM

This type of lawsuit will mean that every accident will result in this sort of thing.

Which case if you are the only owner of said boat - only do short handed or single handed events to prevent lawsuit risk to your family. Have more kids so your crewed boat is strictly made up of your family to start with.

Or make all of your crew official boat owners which case if a outside family member gets the grand idea from a lawyer the first thing to clear up is - why are you taking the other owners to court when your kid was also an owner and just as responsible for the situation as the rest of em? LOL

#1323 Asymptote

Asymptote

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,935 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 12:35 AM

Can most of you set aside your own personal agendas and motivations based on how this may possibly affect you, and let the father who lost his daughter deal with it however he wishes to?


Not if the way he choses to do so is going to set a precedent that all of us have to respond to, or prepare for.

With a finding of the owner's culpability all of sailing will have to react. Just like the guy above who now thinks that sailing around an island is an inherently dangerous thing to do. And wants to race on a hazard-free open ocean rounding virtual marks...presumably sitting in his foam-lined cockpit with wave attenuators magically placed around the race course.

#1324 Bulbhunter

Bulbhunter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,400 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 12:39 AM

Register an LLC and place the boat under the LLC to protect your personal wealth ie family money etc. Would be the other option

#1325 Silverbullet

Silverbullet

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,626 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 02:20 AM


Can most of you set aside your own personal agendas and motivations based on how this may possibly affect you, and let the father who lost his daughter deal with it however he wishes to?


Not if the way he choses to do so is going to set a precedent that all of us have to respond to, or prepare for.


You're kidding, right? A father just lost his daughter.

Posted Image
Now you're going to chime in on how he should or shouldn't react so that it doesn't inconvenience you and your hobby?

I'm also sure you would like 20 kts at your back, flat water, sunshine, no commercial traffic, and a cooperative tide each time you untie your boat, but my guess is that you will probably need to prepare for and respond to other conditions.

#1326 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,016 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 02:40 PM

^^ Of course this was a tragic loss. . . . and equally . . . of course the lawsuit will not bring any of the lost back.

So an honest question here for those 'supporting' the lawsuit . . .

The owner:
- provided a well found vessel
- hired a respected pro skipper to manage the operation of the vessel (including navigation and how close to round)
- could look around and see that other respected race boats on tracks near the bar similar to theirs, so no obvious red flags would have been rased

Obviously with 20/20 hindsight the skipper could have made a different decision on the bar rounding, and there can be an honest debate about whether that was clear or not at the time (obviously it was not to at least 9 boats who also clipped the bar) And obviously the SFYC could have set a different course, and there can be (and has been) an honest debate about the merits of that. And obviously Alexis's pfd could have worked better, and she could have been wearing crotch straps and been clipped in, and there can be an honest debate about all that.

But honestly what more do you really think the Owner could have done? I have never really seen any practical suggestion for what the owner could have done differently.

#1327 us7070

us7070

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,315 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 06:30 PM

But honestly what more do you really think the Owner could have done? I have never really seen any practical suggestion for what the owner could have done differently.


I don't understand why everyone here seems to think the owner escapes liability for the actions of his hired captain...

That's not the way it works any where else in liability law, at least as far as I know.

In this case, perhaps the court (if it gets that far) will decide nobody was negligent, and not award damages. perhaps they will decide the owner did all he could.

many here seem to think that there is some legal principle by which an owner is shielded from liability because he hired a captain - I don't think it's so.

if some huge motor yacht runs you down because they weren't keeping watch.., do you want to sue the owner or the captain?

is carnival responsible for the actions of captain Schettino?

if an airline pilot negligently operates an aircraft, and kills you, do you want your family to sue the pilot, or the airline?

I'm not saying the skipper of LSC was negligent -- the court will decide that.

do you guys think that only sailboat owners should get a pass on liability arising from actions of employees, or should that pass also apply to trucking companies, airlines, banks, hospitals...?

#1328 Raz'r

Raz'r

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,146 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 06:35 PM

really, I can't cast blame on the father.

I sort of expected it.

But it's another fact you need to accommodate when looking at whether you are willing to risk your kids inheritance for a hobby.

I would expect that this event isn't the nail in the coffin of local crewed offshore racing, but will contribute to further decline in the sport.

#1329 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,133 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 02:28 AM


Can most of you set aside your own personal agendas and motivations based on how this may possibly affect you, and let the father who lost his daughter deal with it however he wishes to?


Not if the way he choses to do so is going to set a precedent that all of us have to respond to, or prepare for.

With a finding of the owner's culpability all of sailing will have to react. Just like the guy above who now thinks that sailing around an island is an inherently dangerous thing to do. And wants to race on a hazard-free open ocean rounding virtual marks...presumably sitting in his foam-lined cockpit with wave attenuators magically placed around the race course.


Can't think of the race at the moment

but LOOOOOOOOOONG Ago a race around an Island was held

Sum Furiners won it and decided to Never Sail it round an Island again

hasn't been a problem yet

Everything else has been a Problem, just not the islands part

wish I could think of the name :o :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

#1330 ice9a

ice9a

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 423 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 12:24 PM


But honestly what more do you really think the Owner could have done? I have never really seen any practical suggestion for what the owner could have done differently.


You don't even attempt to answer the question....

if an airline pilot negligently operates an aircraft, and kills you, do you want your family to sue the pilot, or the airline?

if some huge motor yacht runs you down because they weren't keeping watch.., do you want to sue the owner or the captain?

What's with your 'want to sue' comment? You used it twice. You sound a bit like an ambulance chaser.

The better question might be 'who was responsible for the decision/action?' In your airline case (pilot negligently operates an aircraft) the pilot would certainly be. The airline might share some responsibility if there was evidence they were aware that the pilot was not competent, or had issued unsafe policy direction (like poor maintenance or making the pilot operate for too long without rest) that the pilot was following. In the LSC case neither of those factors have surfaced.

The owner here has liability insurance, which is simply why he is being sued. That's where the money is and where the lawyers may be able to get a settlement. It's blackmail, nothing to do with whether it is 'correct'.

Also just to note . . . "negligently" . . . part of the reason people have problem with this is because of the question you did not answer . . . if you can not specify something the owner should have done differently then where is even a hint of negligence? If 8 other competent boats independently took the same course of action then where is even the hint of negligence?

I don't understand why everyone here seems to think the owner escapes liability for the actions of his hired captain...

There are in fact areas of maritime law that are distinctly different from law ashore (see the Jones act for instance).

The captain has historically been "master under god", primarily because he was responsible for taking care of the vessel while it was often long out of touch with the owners, but also (even if an owner's representative was on board) because it was viewed a very distinct professional skill set (seamanship) like a doctor or accountant.

The captain is in fact responsible for the safe operation of the vessel. If he can point to some policy or direction from the owner that he was following he might be able to share that responsibility with the owner.



#1331 sryan

sryan

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 24 December 2012 - 02:14 AM


Case in point, which also addresses another issue many people talked about, 'using an island as a turning mark.' Yes, Asymptote, any island. It just isn't necessary any more.

Not necessary anymore.....?!? That statement makes my head steam and it's at best a knee-jerk reaction. Without calling names...... it shows a severe lack of understandings of the dangers of sailing and what proper seamanship is. What if your little gps gizmo stops working or runs out of batteries? Seamanship involves a lot more than pushing buttons with waypoints you set on a comfy couch shoreside. You should be able to navigate without them and reliance on them is a huge problem in itself. Yes, the island can be cut to close, but that is only a tiny bit of the course with a lee shore and hazardous conditions. More than several lives have been lost on the shoals/bars/main shipping channel in the Gulf of the Farallones; no where near shore..... not to mention the huge lee shore the whole coast provides on the way back, Mile Rock, Seal Rocks, Pt. Bonita, the bridge abutments and the list goes on. Yeah, let's stop going around islands indeeeeed.


I'm not sure you understand what I mean. It would have no impact on most of what you said here. What I'm saying is instead of the sailing instructions being to round Farallon Islands, they would say you have to go north of 37.73,-123.04 and south of 37.68,-123.03. You take cutting close to the islands out of the picture. I'm not trying to be a poser here. I have NO offshore racing experience. My racing has been mostly been on inland lakes with a collection of 4KSB's. I just don't get adding danger by rewarding risk taking. Again, look at the Vendee Globe. There is a big reward for going far south but great danger so the RC took it out of the picture. It's still dangerous, just less so.


The problem I have with the logic of putting in a mark and not using the islands is where do you draw this line. Sailors sail around headlands and short tack up beaches all the time. Do we have instructions that say thou shall not sail close to land ever? How on earth would that work?

#1332 Moonduster

Moonduster

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,858 posts

Posted 24 December 2012 - 05:33 AM

That a lawsuit was inevitable was obvious from the ridiculous memorial during a Giant's game. What kind of family grieves by forcing paying customers to partake?

And if the lawsuit isn't about money, then what is it about? It's not about investigation - none was ever necessary. It's not about justice - none is really possible in this situation. This is about trite, angry, retribution. This is a display of entitlement.

And I would expect the plaintiff will call every member of the Panel and ask why it is that they recommended changes if the rules were adequate. Then they'll extrapolate that the owner ought to have known that the rules were inadequate and taken appropriate measures. The jury will find and the precedent will be set.

It's not justice, but it is poetic.

#1333 NoStrings

NoStrings

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,530 posts

Posted 24 December 2012 - 06:06 AM

Alex was an SF Giants batgirl you dimwit. The entire organization loved her. Jesus...you're an idiot.

#1334 Naviguesser

Naviguesser

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 743 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 02:14 AM

I finally got around to reviewing the data and generated two tables for determining the Minimum Water Depth (MWD) for rounding Maintop given forecasted conditions. The first uses the wind wave and swell forecast to find the Significant Wave Height (RSS of peak wind wave and swell heights). The second uses the SWH to determine MWD showing the 10%, 1% and max expected wave height (2 x SWH). The lat-long columns list the coordinates that I'll be using in future races to ensure minumum water under the boat. Feel free to check the math and pick your own - YMMV.


Attached File  Farallones - Maintop Turning Mark.pdf   255.37KB   50 downloads

#1335 Ship o' Fools

Ship o' Fools

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 562 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 03:38 AM

I finally got around to reviewing the data and generated two tables for determining the Minimum Water Depth (MWD) for rounding Maintop given forecasted conditions. The first uses the wind wave and swell forecast to find the Significant Wave Height (RSS of peak wind wave and swell heights). The second uses the SWH to determine MWD showing the 10%, 1% and max expected wave height (2 x SWH). The lat-long columns list the coordinates that I'll be using in future races to ensure minumum water under the boat. Feel free to check the math and pick your own - YMMV.


Attached File  Farallones - Maintop Turning Mark.pdf   255.37KB   50 downloads


Don't forget about the tide. As I recall, LSC was rounding the island at low tide.

#1336 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,016 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 02:55 PM

I finally got around to reviewing the data and generated two tables for determining the Minimum Water Depth (MWD) for rounding Maintop given forecasted conditions. The first uses the wind wave and swell forecast to find the Significant Wave Height (RSS of peak wind wave and swell heights). The second uses the SWH to determine MWD showing the 10%, 1% and max expected wave height (2 x SWH).


Three (somewhat picky, but you asked) things:

There are two sets of coefficients/definitions for the 1% and 10% waves heights. One is the size of the 1 % and 10% wave or more precisely 'the height exceeded by the highest 1% (or 10%) of waves". The other is the average height of the highest 1% and 10% of waves. You are not precise in your header, but I think you intend the first - eg the height of the 10% wave. and if so you are using the wrong multiplier.

The LSC report used the second definition (And multipliers), which I thought was generally not intuitive and not understood. It was done that way for two reasons. First, it leads to a bigger wave size number and there was an intent to be 'conservative' in all the calculations. And second, significant wave height was originally technically the average of the highest 1/3 of waves, (although a different technical calculation is actually used today) and the second definition/multiplier is somewhat more 'consistent'. I think both rationals are a bit bogus and that the report should have used the 'height exceeded by' multiplier, as that is what people commonly mean when they say the size of the 10% waves.

Average of highest 10% of waves 1.27 x Hs
Height exceeded by highest 10% of waves 1.07 x Hs

Average of highest 1% of waves 1.67 x Hs
Height exceeded by highest 1% of waves 1.52 x Hs

Second, one thing that comes out of the calculations is that a foot or two (of Hs or of depth) make a huge difference to the risk. For instance, moving from 35' of depth to 38' of depth (give the waves that LSC had) decreases the risk from .3% to .04% (almost an order of magnitude). So if you generally pick your 'acceptable depth' using your approach, and then look at the bottom contour and are near a drop-off and can easily pick up a couple feet of depth without much distance cost you definitely should.

Given the risk sensitivity to depth, you should also #1 take into account the tide (as mentioned in the post above) and also get the latest Hs buoy report or forecast as you approach the island, rather using the early morning forecast which can be obsolete by the time of the rounding.

Related to the wave forecast, they usually issue a range. For LSC it was " wind waves 3 to 7 feet, NW swell 12 to 15 ft at 13 seconds". I argued it was better to use actual measure Hs from buoy reports. But if you are going to use the forecast you will have to decide if you you the mid-point of the range or the high end. I argued that one should use the mid-point of the forecast range, but the report used the high end (Again for 'conservatism'). The buoy reports were 14', the RMS mid-point of the forecast was 14' while the RMS of the high end was 17'.

My perspective is/was that one should make the most clear viewed realistic/likily estimate and then make your risk decision, rather than loading all sorts of 'conservative' factors into the calculation and having a result that does not match what you see on the water.

Third, remember than wind/wave direction makes a huge difference. The calculation in the report obviously most applies to the directly windward side shoals. And you can (usually) cut less directly exposed shoals with lower risk.


And remember that the risk of going across a shallow area si related to both its depth and its width (eg how many waves you will be exposed to as you cross it). So you might cross a very narrow shallow spot but not a wider bar at that same depth.

Finally 'feel the waves' as you get toward the shallow part of your route. If they 'feel' unusually big, steep or poorly shaped, exercise some judgement and edge back out into deeper water.

#1337 Naviguesser

Naviguesser

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 743 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 07:06 AM

Thanks for the comments and clarifications; all good points.


To clarify, I used the average height multiplier for the 10% and 1% numbers (1.27 and 1.67, respectively), and while admittedly conservative, I feel they do provide a reasonable reference point for making prudent decisions. Besides, I would be surprised if the depth of water shown on the charts is close to within 4' in some places, which is why I didn't add the complication of tide. Moreover, I wouldn't care to be that precise in selecting a reference point anyway, since I will continue to do exactly what you suggest and 'feel the waves' before choosing how close I'll get.

#1338 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,016 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 02:35 PM

To clarify, I used the average height multiplier for the 10% and 1% numbers (1.27 and 1.67, respectively), and while admittedly conservative, I feel they do provide a reasonable reference point for making prudent decisions.

That's fine, so long as you understand the implication of the numbers - eg that they are in fact NOT the heights of the 1 in 10 and 1 in 100 waves, but of the average of waves bigger than the 10% and 1% waves . . . just for your reference the 1.27 multiplier matches the height of about the 4% wave and the 1.67 is about the .4% wave.

Besides, I would be surprised if the depth of water shown on the charts is close to within 4' in some places,

That's interesting. I would have expected the charted depths on the course to be within 1' accurate (of course taking into account the chart depth datum). Out of curiosity, do (or anyone else here) you have any specific observations suggesting 4' errors along that course (or elsewhere in the SF racing area)?

Another discussion is whether you should have a cockpit display showing the depth, or just rely on the plotter/charted depths.

Moreover, I wouldn't care to be that precise in selecting a reference point anyway, since I will continue to do exactly what you suggest and 'feel the waves' before choosing how close I'll get.

Excellent. The trick here is to realize that as you come from the east bar to the west bar (or the other way) and are looking in at the shallow water (eg 'VFR navigation') you may well not see a .4% wave happen, so you may not see the potential 'breaking wave zone' with an actual breaking wave. The implication is that you need to be more sensitive to looking at wave shape and size to judge (and not just looking for breaking) where the potential breaking wave zone in fact is.



#1339 us7070

us7070

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,315 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:04 PM

Excellent. The trick here is to realize that as you come from the east bar to the west bar (or the other way) and are looking in at the shallow water (eg 'VFR navigation') you may well not see a .4% wave happen, so you may not see the potential 'breaking wave zone' with an actual breaking wave. The implication is that you need to be more sensitive to looking at wave shape and size to judge (and not just looking for breaking) where the potential breaking wave zone in fact is.


this approach seems to require a familiarity with the conditions at the island, and the potential danger spots in particular, that might not really be achievable, given that people race there maybe once a year, and are only over the bars for a pretty short time.

#1340 Naviguesser

Naviguesser

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 743 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 04:22 AM


To clarify, I used the average height multiplier for the 10% and 1% numbers (1.27 and 1.67, respectively), and while admittedly conservative, I feel they do provide a reasonable reference point for making prudent decisions.

That's fine, so long as you understand the implication of the numbers - eg that they are in fact NOT the heights of the 1 in 10 and 1 in 100 waves, but of the average of waves bigger than the 10% and 1% waves . . . just for your reference the 1.27 multiplier matches the height of about the 4% wave and the 1.67 is about the .4% wave.

Besides, I would be surprised if the depth of water shown on the charts is close to within 4' in some places,

That's interesting. I would have expected the charted depths on the course to be within 1' accurate (of course taking into account the chart depth datum). Out of curiosity, do (or anyone else here) you have any specific observations suggesting 4' errors along that course (or elsewhere in the SF racing area)?

Another discussion is whether you should have a cockpit display showing the depth, or just rely on the plotter/charted depths.

Moreover, I wouldn't care to be that precise in selecting a reference point anyway, since I will continue to do exactly what you suggest and 'feel the waves' before choosing how close I'll get.

Excellent. The trick here is to realize that as you come from the east bar to the west bar (or the other way) and are looking in at the shallow water (eg 'VFR navigation') you may well not see a .4% wave happen, so you may not see the potential 'breaking wave zone' with an actual breaking wave. The implication is that you need to be more sensitive to looking at wave shape and size to judge (and not just looking for breaking) where the potential breaking wave zone in fact is.


In fact, it's quite unlikely during an approach to the bar that you would see the 0.4% wave, considering that they would occur about once an hour with a 14 second period according to the report. So, unlike flying VFR where you can actually see the clouds you want to stay out of, you have to know the area of likely breaking waves for the conditions and ensure that you're out of that zone. Besides, the difference that we're speaking of is only a couple of hundred yards, a inconsequential difference in course distance on a 58 nm race.

In any event, the one thing that this incident should teach us is that this is one corner not to cut too close!

#1341 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,016 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 01:56 PM


The implication is that you need to be more sensitive to looking at wave shape and size to judge (and not just looking for breaking) where the potential breaking wave zone in fact is.


this approach seems to require a familiarity with the conditions at the island, and the potential danger spots in particular, that might not really be achievable, given that people race there maybe once a year, and are only over the bars for a pretty short time.


hmmm . . . perhaps . . . but the location of the 'problem area' is well known, and there WILL definitely be wave shape/size indications at a much higher frequency than the actual breaking waves. And in fact LSC did definitely encountered (according to the survivor reports) an 'early warning' wave between the bars.

The alternative (suggested by several in posts above) is just to pre-set a course 'well outside' (make a very conservative depth/wave forecast calculation). That probably gives up 5-10 boat lengths of distance. For some boats that will be an excellent trade-off, but others would (for instance) pay their sailmakers anything to get a guaranteed 5-10 boat lengths and will definitely want to round this corner as closely as 'prudent' and the wave size/shape judgement is the way to do that. Of course I agree that if you are going that route you need some decent experience with waves, and some decent experience with this corner would also be very useful.

Beyond the extra distance, another 'problem' with the completely 'pre-computed' rounding depth is that when you get out there the waves may well not be as forecast. This is just simply not a cookie cutter task. You really need to exercise seamanship/judgement . . . and experience/knowledge is certainly rather useful in being able to do so.

You can in fact 'usually' cut these bars. Both historical experience shows that (many boats have cut them in the past) as do the theoretical breaking wave calculations. According to the report's 'conservative' calculation, you could take LSC's course across the bars in up to 11' significant wave heights (Which is within the 2 sigma wave probability band), and generally that's in agreement with the race history. The problem for LSC was that the waves last year were rather bigger than 'typical' (outside the 2 sigma band - as shown in posts above with the actual buoy wave measurements), and the 'safe' history of cutting the bar could not (should not) be applied.

By the way, you will find that most people involved in this topic have been told by their lawyers to shut up and not discuss it because of the lawsuit. I have also been told that . . . but I don't think it is helpful to the sailing community or to all of us learning as much as we can from each other and from the report and from prior experiences in the race. So, I continue to engage in discussions about the topic in order to try to further understanding and safety. But of course all I say is my opinion only.

#1342 us7070

us7070

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,315 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 03:10 PM

"judgement and seamanship" to me, means experience, and the ability to use that experience wisely.

one thing we have learned is that this place is somewhat unusual, and while there may be some sailors who have a lot of experience with this location, I think many racers will not have much experience here - afterall, they mostly only go there in a race. it's not as if they are cruising there with the kids on weekends. also even, people with experience had to start somewhere.

Your comments indicate that a boat could substantially reduce risk by adding about 30 seconds to their elapsed time in a ~7 to 11hr race.

I navigate - and that seems like a good trade off, especially knowing what I know now about the dangers there.

#1343 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,016 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 03:49 PM

"judgement and seamanship" to me, means experience, and the ability to use that experience wisely.


Experience is certainly one way (and perhaps the 'best' way) to gain that judgement and seamanship (and taking some 'practice sails' out around the island would certainly be useful . . . as should be hiring an experienced pro skipper as the LSC owner did . . . ). But there is also certainly a 'hope' that some can be gained/learned in other ways . . . seminars, talking to other sailors, understanding the 'physics' (as in the wave dynamics), videos, etc.

Your comments indicate that a boat could substantially reduce risk by adding about 30 seconds to their elapsed time in a ~7 to 11hr race..


That is certainly one valid way to look at it. But the other is that 5 -10 boat lengths are still 5-10 boat lengths, which might make the difference between first and third, and the competitive teams will be looking for every boat length they can find. It really depends on your trade-off between competitive appetite vs risk. . . . as do many other things in racing (like how much wind to fly a chute in, or when to have only your very best helm on the wheel, or in what conditions to not start or to retire in).

#1344 us7070

us7070

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,315 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 04:27 PM

Your comments indicate that a boat could substantially reduce risk by adding about 30 seconds to their elapsed time in a ~7 to 11hr race..


That is certainly one valid way to look at it. But the other is that 5 -10 boat lengths are still 5-10 boat lengths, which might make the difference between first and third, and the competitive teams will be looking for every boat length they can find. It really depends on your trade-off between competitive appetite vs risk. . . . as do many other things in racing (like how much wind to fly a chute in, or when to have only your very best helm on the wheel, or in what conditions to not start or to retire in).


It's not often that 30 sec of elapsed time is one place in a 10hr race, let alone two places. now before everyone starts giving examples to the contrary - It certainly does happen, and I've seen 30 seconds be the difference in much longer races than this.

nevertheless, nobody wants to give up 30 seconds

It's generally been my experience that the more competitive sailors take fewer risks (both in terms of tactics, and in terms of safety) than less competitive boats - because they know that they can win without doing so.., just by being good.

of course, in a handicap race, everything is a bit of a crapshoot anyway.

#1345 jhc

jhc

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,731 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 04:41 PM

LSC was not contesting for first, or third. This was not a case of over the top competitive action. Was simply in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
The first, and third place boats were able to navigate the island successfully.
This idea that to be competitive, you must take enormous risk, is a notion that is perpetuated by people who have no idea what competition is.

#1346 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,016 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 06:10 PM

The first, and third place boats were able to navigate the island successfully.

Well . . . the 1st place boat in class PHRO3 was the boat that followed exactly in LSC's path cutting across that bar.

LSC was not contesting for first, or third. This was not a case of over the top competitive action.

We were talking about how to plan future roundings and not specifically about LSC's decision. However, I would suggest that even though LSC blew their start and were not contesting for the front of the fleet, they were still sailing 'competitively', going as fast as they could and saving as much distance as they could.

This idea that to be competitive, you must take enormous risk, is a notion that is perpetuated by people who have no idea what competition is.

The notion that sailing entails risks is plain fact. You are the one that added 'enormous', I never did. And if you are suggesting that I don't understand competition then you don't know my background . . . you ever been an NCAA all American or on an Olympic team??



#1347 JustDroppingBy

JustDroppingBy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,576 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 01:45 AM

Well . . . the 1st place boat in class PHRO3 was the boat that followed exactly in LSC's path cutting across that bar.


Yes, they did just that, successfully, and not that long after LSC's mishap from an elapsed time perspective. Give it 2 or 3 years and everyone will be right back on that track, perhaps closer even, and since the odds don't favor another crash, it will probably be fine.

If it's not, that's the way it goes, racing, yachting, climbing, jumping from perfectly good airplanes - they all have an inherent risk factor and the law of averages is not called a law for nothing. There's the solo guy off Tasmania who may be in real trouble, should we stop solo racing, wipe Tasmania off the map or hang the mast builder because the rig fell down?

All the talk about how competitors aren't risk takers and 30 seconds yada yada is just silly talk really. Ask Lance Armstrong if you don't believe me.

And Evans, just for the record, the fellow who goes by naviguesser is hardly guessing, with his engineering or his sailing judgement, that bit is assured by his results and background. :)

#1348 One eye Jack

One eye Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,195 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 04:49 AM

There are three types of people. The one that learns from others mistakes, the one that will learn from their own mistakes, and those that never will learn. The last two may have a bit shorter life span.
Everybody's talking about the extra time to round the island if they don't go inside.. They say maybe 15 boat lengths . And how much time will you loose when you end up like low speed chase? Or when you go home and you round up once or twice?its funny how the turtle beat the hare.

#1349 K38BOB

K38BOB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,596 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 04:22 PM


Well . . . the 1st place boat in class PHRO3 was the boat that followed exactly in LSC's path cutting across that bar.


Yes, they did just that, successfully, and not that long after LSC's mishap from an elapsed time perspective. Give it 2 or 3 years and everyone will be right back on that track, perhaps closer even, and since the odds don't favor another crash, it will probably be fine.

If it's not, that's the way it goes, racing, yachting, climbing, jumping from perfectly good airplanes - they all have an inherent risk factor and the law of averages is not called a law for nothing. There's the solo guy off Tasmania who may be in real trouble, should we stop solo racing, wipe Tasmania off the map or hang the mast builder because the rig fell down?

All the talk about how competitors aren't risk takers and 30 seconds yada yada is just silly talk really. Ask Lance Armstrong if you don't believe me.

And Evans, just for the record, the fellow who goes by naviguesser is hardly guessing, with his engineering or his sailing judgement, that bit is assured by his results and background. :)


Actually skippers meetings are one way to keep lessons learned alive, so are other education venues
other participants talked to recently mentioned above are certainly permanently enlightened...aren't you?
(glad to see you feeling better)